03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ritter: Three additional units. Weinstein: Yes. Balch: Well the church qualifies as a unit right? Weinstein: Three units total—three residential units total. Balch: Each at 5 acres is what you're saying? Weinstein: Yes. Nagler: So if that were to occur, the homes would then need to be spread out across the 15 acres, right? Weinstein: The units don't have to be on 5 acre lots. The density is one unit per 5 acres, but the General Plan actually encourages clustering of homes on 1 acre lots. So there could be three homes on one acre lots and the rest would effectively be open space. Balch: Designated open space to meet the requirement of the zoning then. O'Connor: The question is, would the 15 acres all be owned by the three homeowners or could you cluster three homes separately and leave the other 12 acres with the church. Hagen: The other 12 acres could be with the church and that parcel would have multiple designations. The remaining property with the remaining acreage within that 15 would have to be designated somehow as open space or maintained as an open space easement, but it could be maintained by the church. O'Connor: So on number 1, I also feel the same way as Commissioner Allen. I'm not a fan of changing the General Plan to increase the number of units. I know that the City has looked at this property a few times. I've also been out there and I do think if we can get to one acre lots or even larger, I think it would be feasible to put three homes out there. And, I hadn't really looked at it before. Mr. Houston had said they picked this driveway specifically because of how you can see traffic in both direction so it's kind of a safety thing. But when I looked at this, if we use the same driveway they have today, and I'm not trying to plan this for you, I'm just throwing out a suggestion. But, if we use the same driveway to access two homes on an acre or acre-plus in that area, a third home I thought could go down by the church entrance which has quite a large area between the adjacent property and the church driveway. I think we could get an acre- plus lot over on that side as well and I just think that's one option. But again, I'm not in favor of increasing density. We hear all the time from the people who come to see us that we have too many homes already. We have too much traffic already. We don't have enough water. The schools are over-crowded. We keep hearing this, and I agree and again, I know we lost a lawsuit a few years ago but we used to have a housing cap and I know the majority of people in Pleasanton would rather have EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 13, 2016 Page 13 of 22